kasei: concern that graph store protocol references service description, but SD does not reference the graph store protocol

15:13:01 [pgearon]

sandro: don't see a problem with graph store protocol referring to SD, with the SD not knowing anything about it

15:14:57 [pgearon]

LeeF: agree that it's OK to say, "this is the vocabulary to use wrt the service description", but in this case section 5.8 of the graph store protocol seems to be talking about getting a different way of getting an SD document that isn't the same as what the SD says - not entirely sure though

15:16:07 [pgearon]

LeeF: is the graph store service IRI same or different to graph store IRI?

15:16:21 [pgearon]

Sandro: different. May or may not be the same as the endpoint IRI

15:17:16 [kasei]

q+

15:17:53 [LeeF]

ack kasei

15:18:02 [pgearon]

LeeF: 5.8 in the graph store protocol is saying that the service IRI and store IRIs are the same, which I don't agree with

15:18:31 [pgearon]

kasei: concerned that graph store protocol casually dropping OPTIONS as a way to get the SD

15:19:02 [pgearon]

kasei: SD language sprinkled around the graph store protocol

15:20:51 [pgearon]

LeeF and kasei in agreement on graph store protocol document saying that both IRIs are being treated as the same

15:21:26 [pgearon]

LeeF: need to improve the text to show that service IRI and protocol IRI are not necessarily the same, though they may be

15:22:03 [pgearon]

sandro: if they're not the same, then if you do a GET on the graph store service IRI then should say what you'd get

15:24:26 [pgearon]

kasei: all the discussion is on 5.8 which says "informative" and then uses normative language, so we know that chimeze will update this

15:25:41 [LeeF]

Consensuses (consensi) of this discussion:

15:26:05 [LeeF]

* GSP Service IRI is not necessarily the same as the SPARQL Protocol Endpoint IRI

15:26:17 [LeeF]

* RFC2119 language needs to be removed from 5.8

15:26:25 [LeeF]

* Language needs to be clearer on this distinction

15:26:58 [LeeF]

Open questions:

15:27:33 [LeeF]

* What happens if the IRIs for GSP Service and the Protocol Endpoint are not the same and you do a GET on the GSP Service IRI? particularly if the deployment doesn't involve a SPARQL endpoint at all?

15:27:49 [LeeF]

* Should we remove the recommendation to use OPTIONS for this and just go with GET?

15:28:36 [pgearon]

LeeF: won't be able to conclude without chimezie, but hopefully can clear up all the issues for him to work with

15:29:01 [LeeF]

Also the example in 5.5 implies the same thing that 5.8 implies about the IRIs, and needs to be made clearer